The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-05-25
Supreme Court.

of SALE
America vinton vs.. Gustave Zschech ct al.
Matters report filed.
Supreme Court
Hon. Allen collars. Chief-Justice.
The following opinions rendered May "a
DEFAULT-INsANE PERsoN--DEFENsE.
1851 James l.. Dickerson. administrator,
etc. VS.. Isaac T. Davis ct al. Boone c. G. Re-
versed. Mitchell. J.-Where a judgment by de-
fault was taken against a person of unsound
mind. but who had not been judicaly declared
INSANE bysa good-faith holder of commercial
note which had been obtained by fraud and
without consideration by the original payee. the
default will be set aside and the guardian or ad-
minstrator, showing that his ward was of
sound mind when the note was executed and the
Judgment TAKEN and that the note was without
consideration. will be let in to defend.
ATTACHMENT OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
1924 Mary E. Wright exr., ct al. vs. John
Manus ct al. Harrison C. G. Reversed Howk.
J.-When transcript of proceedings in which
a judgment was rendered on July %, 1885,
filed July % 1886, it is filed within the year
allowed by statute, the first day of the year be-
ing excluded r. s., Sec. $780, II. COM
plant an attachment bond which fails to
allege that after the rendition of Judgment for
the sale of the attached property a special
execution had been issued on such Judgment
to the sheriff OF the proper county, commanding
him to sell such property, ETC.. and that
such sheriff, by virtue of such execution, had
demanded of the obligors the delivery of the
attached property or the payment of it's APP
praised value not exceeding the amount of such
judgment and costs. is bad. t3) Where to
such a complaint the sureties answered that
personal judgment had been rendered against
their principal, and upon examining the record
and being advised that action would lie
against them their bond, they had surren-
dered indemnity they had taken, and that the
record had been amended nunc pro tune,
to make the Judgment one against the property
attached, such answer is good
WABASH & ERIE CANAL LANDS
1892 Morris Frank ct al. VS.. Evansville &
frmed. Howk, Where lands had been taken,
occupied and used under the series of laws
which provided for the construction OF the Wa
bash & Erie canal the estate taken in such lands
is an estate in fee simple, and not mere ease
ment Water works Company VS.. Burkhardt,
Al Ind. 1854, adhered to.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES WARRANTY.
1894 David Hartsr VS.. Christian W. Elz-
worth Montgomery G. c. Affirmed. collars G.
THAT a corporation was de facto is sufficient
to exonerate one who has transferred his shares
of stock as to any implied warranty as to its ex-
istence He does not implicitly warrant that
the corporation was one de jure.
TAxEs-PERsoNALTY-LIE
1905. Henry st. Clair ct al VS.. Samuel Nc
Clure. Ripley G. c. Reversed. Niblack, j.
When land is sold for taxes when there was
sufficient personal property to pay the delinquent
taxes the sale is Intellectual to convey title, but
the State, under such circumstances, transfers to
the purchaser the lien Of the State, and the sale
is notyoid.
FICIARY.
1880. Benjamin Holland guardian, VS.. Sam
uel Taylor ct al, executors Marion G. c.
Reversed collars, c. J.-Where father took
policy of life insurance in a mutual insurance
company whose bylaws provided that each mem
Der of the company should enter upon his ap-
plication the name or names of the members of
the family dependent upon him, to whom he de-
sired the benefits paid and which provided that
the beneficiary might be changed in prescribed
way. and the insured named his daughter
haD Enfo 4ho Ioo Of ~ IL
the daughter became the absolute owner of the
insurance fund, notwithstanding the assured
had by will made other disposition of it. Any
change of beneficiary would have to be m ade
according to the bylaws of the company, and
the policy coul not be affected by the will. Her
guardian is entitled to it against the execu-
tors to manage it under the direction of the
court.
INSURANCE PoLICY-PLEADING-EsToP
1888. Sarah Ravens vs. The Home Insurance
Company. Grant c. c. Affirmed. Mitchell,
J.-Suit policy of fire insurance The poll
cy prohibited the taking by the assured of addi-
tiona insurance in any other company. The
complaint alleged an agreement with the COM
pany whereby she was permitted to take out ad-
dtional insurance at any time she desired that
she relied the agreement and effected other
insurance; that the company wholly failed
to insert the agreement IN the pol
icy. Insurance companies are estopped to
insist upon the enforcement of conditions
when they have knowledge s. existing facts
which are inconsistent with the conditions i'm
posed. The company here has been guilty of
no misconduct here upon which estoppel could
be predicated. Other insurance taken
without notice to the company, and without re-
quest that the agreement be inserted. The COM
pany is not estopped and the omplaint bad.
~ Where such policy covered building and
the household furniture in different amounts.
in respect to the above condition it is entire and
II void as to the building, it is void in toto.
BOARD OF Observation-Disclosures
126l8 Board. etc. vs. George w. Bunting
Fayette G. G. Affirmed. Elliott 1.-The
RI n n tu inv cd
with authority to build Jail and sheriffs resi-
dence. e. Where there is a contract with the
hoard in regard to plans. etc. which provided
that the board might have the plans changed as
thew deemed proper. evidence of a conversation
with member of the board to changes is
inadmissible The acts of individual members
cannot bind the board when official action is
required.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
12472 Robert NJ. Nixon VS.. William HI.
Beard Henry G. G. Affirmed. Niblack, j.
Pleas & Co.. in failing circumstances, exc
cuted a mortgage to the parties in suit to
indemnify the plaintiff. who was a surety on
the note of the firm and to secure the defendant
who a creditor. The plaintiff herein alleges
that defendant took possession of the mortgaged
property and converted it to his own use: that
defendant then executed to him an agree
ment, agreeing to protect him from loss
surety at any time the note must be paid
such measures were necessary for the paint
tiffs security and protection whenever the pay
ment of the note. after its maturity, might be
required. either by the bank or the surety. 1t
was not necessary TO aver that pay ment had been
demanded by the bank. and that payment had
judgment.
TAX TITLE-IMPRovEMENTS.
1888. Christopher Hilgenberg Sol hia E.
Rhodes ct al. Marion S. G.. Affirmed Elliott.
El@~1 IL l41~ .-i%.~ %, fx4F